PDA

View Full Version : Sporting News Names Kobe Bryant Player of the Decade.



JordansBulls
09-24-2009, 10:43 AM
Source: SportingNews (http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/article/2009-09-24/sporting-news-nba-athlete-decade-kobe-bryant-sg-lakers)




In the NBA, Kobe Bryant edged the Spurs' Tim Duncan.


http://www.sportingnews.com/images/142222/article.jpeg




SN PLAYERS OF THE YEAR
2001: Allen Iverson
2002: Tim Duncan
2003: Tim Duncan
2000: Shaquille O'Neal
2004: Kevin Garnett
2005: Shaquille O'Neal
2006: LeBron James, Steve Nash
2007: Dirk Nowitzki
2008: Kobe Bryant
2009: LeBron James





And so everyone knows, the Sporting News have voted MVP as well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/tsn_mvp.html

king4day
09-24-2009, 11:14 AM
Considering the Spurs were a top team just about every single year this decade, the results are pretty surprising.
I'd have Duncan as mine as much as I hate that team.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 11:18 AM
I would prefer Duncan over Kobe, but not surprising I guess.

JordansBulls
09-24-2009, 11:25 AM
I think a big factor with Shaq is that he had 7 great years from 1993-1999 as well that can't really play in this discussion because it was the previous decade. Now if we were able to add his years from 1993-1996 or 1996-1999 instead of 2007-2009 then it would be Shaq no question but since we can't it is really only between Duncan and Kobe for consistentcy although Shaq had the greater peak this decade.

Giaps
09-24-2009, 11:28 AM
He deserves it. 4 titles, 5 trips to the finals with possibly 1 more to end the decade. Congratulations to him.

G-Funk
09-24-2009, 11:39 AM
Kobe needs to end this season(09-10) on a high note to kill all debate, that includes MVP or DPOY and Finals MVP.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
09-24-2009, 11:50 AM
Kobe needs to end this season(09-10) on a high note to kill all debate, that includes MVP or DPOY and Finals MVP.

All... what debate?

nitric
09-24-2009, 11:57 AM
Agreed

3RDASYSTEM
09-24-2009, 12:13 PM
KOBE is 4 out of 6 in FINALS (DETROIT 04 and BOSTON 08)

G-Funk
09-24-2009, 12:13 PM
All... what debate?

Whether Duncan should be player of the decade


KOBE is 4 out of 6 in FINALS (DETROIT 04 and BOSTON 08)

And counting. Hopefully he keeps that record above 500.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 01:08 PM
I think a big factor with Shaq is that he had 7 great years from 1993-1999 as well that can't really play in this discussion because it was the previous decade. Now if we were able to add his years from 1993-1996 or 1996-1999 instead of 2007-2009 then it would be Shaq no question but since we can't it is really only between Duncan and Kobe for consistentcy although Shaq had the greater peak this decade.

Shaq was unreal in 2000-02 as well. But yes, he regressed a bit in around 2004, and is downhill. Its between Duncan and Kobe, period I think

TheKing23
09-24-2009, 01:34 PM
I would take Duncan over him as the player of the decade.

MTar786
09-24-2009, 02:26 PM
kobe was the better player this decade

kobe appeared is the finals 6 time out of the 9 years this decade (that is crazy)
might be 7 if they go this year
he won an mvp and a finals mvp
won 3 all star mvp's
has 4 rings
has better numbers

and i think the deciding factor was that when they look towards this coming season kobe seems to have the better team, he is the better player and has a better chance to win an mvp and/or championship where as duncan is starting to go on the downside of his career

JordansBulls
09-24-2009, 03:07 PM
kobe was the better player this decade

kobe appeared is the finals 6 time out of the 9 years this decade (that is crazy)
might be 7 if they go this year
he won an mvp and a finals mvp
won 3 all star mvp's
has 4 rings
has better numbers

and i think the deciding factor was that when they look towards this coming season kobe seems to have the better team, he is the better player and has a better chance to win an mvp and/or championship where as duncan is starting to go on the downside of his career

Not sure that Kobe has better numbers. To know who has better numbers it is essentially what PER tells you. That is how you measure if 27/6/5 is greater than 22/12 and 3.

S-Dot
09-24-2009, 03:13 PM
I would prefer Duncan over Kobe, but not surprising I guess.

Agreed^

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 03:14 PM
Duncan was lead dog on his team every single season, put up extremely efficient numbers. The Spurs were basically a top team every single year, vs teh Lakers not being such in the mid 2000's.
Like I said, I prefer Duncan here, but Kobe has an argument, no doubt

jim51990
09-24-2009, 03:16 PM
:facepalm:

rapswin98
09-24-2009, 03:43 PM
its either kobe or duncan, but this decade is not done yet still got one more year. Lets see what happens this season.

Lakers4ItAll
09-24-2009, 03:49 PM
I say Duncan has the edge so far but if Kobe wins any award and is more dominant next season and gets to the finals he would win out

69centers
09-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Duncan, Shaq, and Lebron all won their player of the year twice in the decade, and Kobe only once, so their Math doesn't add up. Sounds tainted, especially since 2009/10 hasn't finished yet and if Duncan or Lebron win a third, that would be messed up picking Kobe.

tbo41fan
09-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Kobe plays the game with soooo much heart and passion, he constantly produces huge numbers, wins constantly, etc.


He DESERVES this award! Good for him!

rapswin98
09-24-2009, 03:58 PM
Lebron shouldnt even be considered. Shaq, Kobe and Duncan have been dominating the league before Lebron even graduated from high school.

theimortalone
09-24-2009, 03:58 PM
He honestly does deserve the award.

And this is coming from a Suns fan.

Chronz
09-24-2009, 05:37 PM
Cmon deep down inside you guys know Kobes the only legitimate choice. His PRIME in its entirety spanned throughout these last 10 years, hes the only player who can make those claims. And in the last 2, soon to be 3 years Kobe has been pretty clearly above Duncan, even if we consider that Duncan was a better player at his peak, its not enough to offset 3 years of distinctive separation, its why Shaq isnt a great choice. Id take Bron or KG ahead of Shaq for the 00's.

Chronz
09-24-2009, 05:40 PM
Lebron shouldnt even be considered. Shaq, Kobe and Duncan have been dominating the league before Lebron even graduated from high school.

That highschool kid grew up and Shaq got old. Your clearly getting your point across, especially considering the tweetmasters well known motto "get a ring for the king".

Chronz
09-24-2009, 05:41 PM
Not sure that Kobe has better numbers. To know who has better numbers it is essentially what PER tells you. That is how you measure if 27/6/5 is greater than 22/12 and 3.
Why do you say this, yet go against PER whenever you see fit?

koberulesall
09-24-2009, 06:16 PM
if you dont pick kobe you just dont like him put all hate aside he is the obvious choice

Iggz53
09-24-2009, 06:23 PM
Yeah he deserves it, slightly over Duncan, who's slightly over KG.

RaiderLakersA's
09-24-2009, 06:24 PM
Standing ovation.

LakersSaintsLSU
09-24-2009, 06:37 PM
Agreed^

thats because you "lebron" fans keep selling your self that lebron is better...and homie change that sig lebron is no way compared to mj:facepalm:....NO RINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

JNA17
09-24-2009, 06:39 PM
good choice :clap:

Lakerfan8032
09-24-2009, 06:43 PM
if you dont pick kobe you just dont like him put all hate aside he is the obvious choice

Agreed. I do think most of the disagreement is based on the fact that Kobe is the most hated player right now. Duncan is great but he has no where near the highs Kobe has (individually). Duncan is a model of consistency, which is great, but Kobe is much more dynamic.

I do like Duncan alot but have to agree Kobe is the player of the decade. The individual things he accomplished are amazing. The 81-point game, outscoring an entire team (a very good team) all by himself through three quarters, four or five 60-point games, several 50-point games (four consecutively) including four championships, a finals MVP, regular season MVP and three All-Star game MVPs. I would include the gold medal but that is not NBA related unless the criteria is just basketball player of the decade.

I will agree that Duncan does have a case but falls short of Kobe. The discussion can only be between the two. If someone could get their PER numbers that would be great.

rapswin98
09-24-2009, 06:43 PM
Standing ovation.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

PBG
09-24-2009, 06:52 PM
wonder if he won ball hog of the decade also

Bruno
09-24-2009, 06:57 PM
wonder if he won ball hog of the decade also

That award probably went to a player who didn't average over five assists a game for the decade.

UnWantedTheory
09-24-2009, 06:57 PM
Agreed. I do think most of the disagreement is based on the fact that Kobe is the most hated player right now. Duncan is great but he has no where near the highs Kobe has (individually). Duncan is a model of consistency, which is great, but Kobe is much more dynamic.

I do like Duncan alot but have to agree Kobe is the player of the decade. The individual things he accomplished are amazing. The 81-point game, outscoring an entire team (a very good team) all by himself through three quarters, four or five 60-point games, several 50-point games (four consecutively) including four championships, a finals MVP, regular season MVP and three All-Star game MVPs. I would include the gold medal but that is not NBA related unless the criteria is just basketball player of the decade.
I will agree that Duncan does have a case but falls short of Kobe. The discussion can only be between the two. If someone could get their PER numbers that would be great.


Duncan has been the top dog on his team since he got there. Four championships with three Finals MVPs along with Two regular season MVPs along with a gold medal I believe. Kobe had Shaq for three of those four rings. He then got Lamar & Pau. Now he is going to have Artest. Duncan never had that much star and fire power up until 07' when he won his last ring, but was still the top dog. TP got that finals MVP I know. But Duncan has carried every team, every year. Just my opinion. I dont hate Kobe, I just think Duncan should have the slight edge over him. I also know that One of those championships and finals MVPs was not in this decade. One more question though....Why cant we really wait till the decade is actually over first? If I am wrong on any info. I am sorry and am willing to listen to others side of the argument on this due to how close the debate actually is.

JNA17
09-24-2009, 06:58 PM
wonder if he won ball hog of the decade also

:facepalm:

JNA17
09-24-2009, 06:59 PM
Duncan has been the top dog on his team since he got there. Four championships with three Finals MVPs along with Two regular season MVPs along with a gold medal I believe. Kobe had Shaq for three of those four rings. He then got Lamar & Pau. Now he is going to have Artest. Duncan never had that much star and fire power up until 07' when he won his last ring, but was still the top dog. TP got that finals MVP I know. But Duncan has carried every team, every year. Just my opinion. I dont hate Kobe, I just think Duncan should have the slight edge over him. I also know that One of those championships and finals MVPs was not in this decade. One more question though....Why cant we really wait till the decade is actually over first? If I am wrong on any info. I am sorry and am willing to listen to others side of the argument on this due to how close the debate actually is.

actually 3. 1999 is not apart of the decade

Bruno
09-24-2009, 07:12 PM
Duncan or Kobe, seriously, either way.

ARMIN12NBA
09-24-2009, 07:13 PM
I can agree with that, but I also think Duncan has a stake in the claim too. In the end, IMO, Kobe was more dominant throughout the decade and entertainment is definitely a factor. Lets face it, whether it is good or bad, Duncan is "boring" (I hate the term, but it'll do). As a player, I love to watch him play, but I am also speaking of exciting personality as well as exciting plays. Not to mention Bryant has a huge offensive role that Duncan has never had (that is, being the playmaker/distributor, etc.).

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 07:16 PM
Entertaining shouldn't factor in. Its all about efficiency. Duncan was the #1 option on his 3 rings, and his team had the top overall record in the 2000's. He is arguably the top player ever at his position.
Being in a monster market and getting endorsements is pretty, but Duncan has been the model of consitently dominant while carrying his team.
All that being said, I have no problem with Kobe being named the top player of the decade to date. Its not like I think Duncan is walking away with it.

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 07:16 PM
Ive been called a lot of names here for not supporting Kobe, but Id take it further and say Kobe only got the award because of the fact that Kobe gets a lot of exposure compared to Duncan.



Duncan has won 3 titles, 2 reg season MVP's and 2 Finals MVP in this decade. Compare that to Kobe's 4 (3 as a scond option) and only 1 regular season MVP and Finals MVP.


Duncan also was a far more efficient and effective player on both ends than Kobe. Again, and unfortunately, the only reason Kobe got this is because he frequents ESPN's Top 10 highlight than good ole Tim Duncan.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 07:33 PM
Kobe was the second option under Shaq, sure. But has there ever been a greater, more dominant second option?

Kobe averaged 29.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg (for a SG), 6.1 apg, on 47% FG shooting over sixteen games in the 2001 playoffs, he was only 22. The Lakers went 15-1 on the way to the championship. These are the numbers of a "second option". He put up these numbers while playing alongside with the most physically dominant post player ever.

Shaq was the main guy, but these numbers are insane and a lot of "first options" don't average anything near this for an entire playoffs. He did it while playing alongside Shaq, that speaks pretty loudly.

Tony Parker did win Finals MVP in 2007, making room for the argument that Duncan was the second option for the 2007 championship. All I'm saying is that the whole "second option" thing is pretty relative; it's not always as black and white as it sounds.

dodie53
09-24-2009, 07:42 PM
i hate the spurs but imo,

duncan > kobe

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 07:50 PM
Kobe was the second option under Shaq, sure. But has there ever been a greater, more dominant second option?

Kobe averaged 29.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg (for a SG), 6.1 apg, on 47% FG shooting over sixteen games in the 2001 playoffs, he was only 22. The Lakers went 15-1 on the way to the championship. These are the numbers of a "second option". He put up these numbers while playing alongside with the most physically dominant post player ever.

Shaq was the main guy, but these numbers are insane and a lot of "first options" don't average anything near this for an entire playoffs. He did it while playing alongside Shaq, that speaks pretty loudly.

Tony Parker did win Finals MVP in 2007, making room for the argument that Duncan was the second option for the 2007 championship. All I'm saying is that the whole "second option" thing is pretty relative; it's not always as black and white as it sounds.

Duncan had a higher TS, PeR and more Win Shares (inlcuding defensive W/S) thank Kobe. He had 1 More MVP, 1 more Finals MVP than Kobe this decade.


Black and white that for me.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:01 PM
Kobe was the second option under Shaq, sure. But has there ever been a greater, more dominant second option?

Kobe averaged 29.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg (for a SG), 6.1 apg, on 47% FG shooting over sixteen games in the 2001 playoffs, he was only 22. The Lakers went 15-1 on the way to the championship. These are the numbers of a "second option". He put up these numbers while playing alongside with the most physically dominant post player ever.

Shaq was the main guy, but these numbers are insane and a lot of "first options" don't average anything near this for an entire playoffs. He did it while playing alongside Shaq, that speaks pretty loudly.

Tony Parker did win Finals MVP in 2007, making room for the argument that Duncan was the second option for the 2007 championship. All I'm saying is that the whole "second option" thing is pretty relative; it's not always as black and white as it sounds.


It is in these particular cases however. Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq on all 3, no matter his numbers. He took advantage of the other teams entire gameplan to stop Shaq. Now, I highly doubt anyone could play second fiddle any better at the guard position than Kobe did, he was fantastic.
But Duncan was #1 on his team, even when Parker won finals MVP. Duncan is, has always been, and probably will be for another couple of years, the Spurs #1 guy. They have enjoyed more success as a team as far as wins, he has a higher PER, and win share, and is the best ever at his position.
Kobe won this due to his entertainment value on top of his awesome basketball resume, which falls just short of Tim imo

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:12 PM
Duncan had a higher TS, PeR and more Win Shares (inlcuding defensive W/S) thank Kobe. He had 1 More MVP, 1 more Finals MVP than Kobe this decade.


Black and white that for me.

I referenced the 2001 playoffs, specifically. Did you choose to ignore that, or did it just fly over your head? Kobe had higher win shares than Duncan, and their PERs were nearly equal, that playoff year. Duncans PER was .4 higher than Bryants.

You missed the point of my post, and regurgitated the same things everyone else has already said, good work.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:16 PM
It is in these particular cases however. Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq on all 3, no matter his numbers. He took advantage of the other teams entire gameplan to stop Shaq. Now, I highly doubt anyone could play second fiddle any better at the guard position than Kobe did, he was fantastic.
But Duncan was #1 on his team, even when Parker won finals MVP. Duncan is, has always been, and probably will be for another couple of years, the Spurs #1 guy. They have enjoyed more success as a team as far as wins, he has a higher PER, and win share, and is the best ever at his position.
Kobe won this due to his entertainment value on top of his awesome basketball resume, which falls just short of Tim imo

Not arguing Kobe was second fiddle, no doubt. His numbers were extremely impressive, you can't argue against his contribution. Sure he took advantage of teams having to double Shaq; Duncan prospered in similar ways by teams having to focus on Parker and Manu. I hear you're argument, it makes perfect sense, and the argument for Duncan as #1 is fine with me. I just gotta defend Kobe when people downplay his importance on the first three championships, he was huge.

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 08:17 PM
I referenced the 2001 playoffs, specifically. Did you choose to ignore that, or did it just fly over your head? Kobe had higher win shares than Duncan, and their PERs were nearly equal, that playoff year. Duncans PER was .4 higher than Bryants.

You missed the point of my post, and regurgitated the same things everyone else has already said, good work.

You referenced 2001 when the topic on hand was for a Decade:facepalm:


Who cares what Kobe did in 2001. The award given was for a span of continous excellence of a player for the past the 9 years.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:20 PM
Not arguing Kobe was second fiddle, no doubt. His numbers were extremely impressive, you can't argue against his contribution. Sure he took advantage of teams having to double Shaq; Duncan prospered in similar ways by teams having to focus on Parker and Manu. I hear you're argument, it makes perfect sense, and the argument for Duncan as #1 is fine with me. I just gotta defend Kobe when people downplay his importance on the first three championships, he was huge.

I would never argue against Kobe's importance to those rings. The defense was based on stopping Shaq, but it became apparent quickly that teams adjusted to Bryant ripping them apart, yet he continued to do so.
Its really apples and oranges. I think they are both unreal players. I just think Duncan meant more to his respective team success in the scheme of things, and is slightly more dominant not only efficiency wise, but is loved by his city, teammates, and franchise, and is probably going down as the best PF of all time.
But if one makes a logical case for Kobe, and leaves terms like, highlights, and entertaining, out of it, I am fine with it.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:21 PM
You referenced 2001 when the topic on hand was for a Decade:facepalm:

You're right. But 2001 is a part of this decade, and I was using that year, specifically to make a point on how he contributed to the first Laker three-peat. We were talking about his role on the threepeat, those are three isolated years of this decade, and I used one of those three years to make a point.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:22 PM
I would never argue against Kobe's importance to those rings. The defense was based on stopping Shaq, but it became apparent quickly that teams adjusted to Bryant ripping them apart, yet he continued to do so.
Its really apples and oranges. I think they are both unreal players. I just think Duncan meant more to his respective team success in the scheme of things, and is slightly more dominant not only efficiency wise, but is loved by his city, teammates, and franchise, and is probably going down as the best PF of all time.
But if one makes a logical case for Kobe, and leaves terms like, highlights, and entertaining, out of it, I am fine with it.

Absolutely.

sofargone
09-24-2009, 08:25 PM
all you laker fans need to get off kobes d ick. Tim Duncan or shaq deserves this more.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:26 PM
People call Kobe the second option, generally to downplay his importance. Why else would it be brought up? Hell, anyone short of prime Jordan would play second fiddle to Shaquile Oneal from 2000-2002.

zachattach
09-24-2009, 08:26 PM
He deserves it. 4 titles, 5 trips to the finals with possibly 1 more to end the decade. Congratulations to him.

6 trips to the finals...

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:26 PM
all you laker fans need to get off kobes d ick. Tim Duncan or shaq deserves this more.

Thats a lot to ask. :cool:

ARMIN12NBA
09-24-2009, 08:27 PM
Entertaining shouldn't factor in. Its all about efficiency. Duncan was the #1 option on his 3 rings, and his team had the top overall record in the 2000's. He is arguably the top player ever at his position.
Being in a monster market and getting endorsements is pretty, but Duncan has been the model of consitently dominant while carrying his team.
All that being said, I have no problem with Kobe being named the top player of the decade to date. Its not like I think Duncan is walking away with it.

The game of professional basketball is entertainment (this you cannot deny).

One thing to consider: Kobe is 4-1 against Duncan in the NBA playoffs (this decade)...

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:30 PM
The game of professional basketball is entertainment (this you cannot deny).

One thing to consider: Kobe is 4-1 against Duncan in the NBA playoffs (this decade)...

well, if the game of basketball is entertainment, than the Spurs would be the worst team in the NBA
And head to head comparisons just dont work. THere are 29 other teams to compete against. This is the same logic that Deron fans use against Paul for example.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
The game of professional basketball is entertainment (this you cannot deny).

One thing to consider: Kobe is 4-1 against Duncan in the NBA playoffs (this decade)...

Great stat Armin.

Wing playes will always be more "entertaining" than bigs, its just the way it is. It's not as if Duncan hasn't had the exposure, he's been to the finals multiple times; people chose to not tune in, thats why the ratings were horrendous. It shouldn't be a factor on considering individual greatness, but it does affect the way people view players and that may subconsciously form peoples opinions.

MackSnackWrap
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
Ye he deserves it, lebron will get next decade

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
People call Kobe the second option, generally to downplay his importance. Why else would it be brought up? Hell, anyone short of prime Jordan would play second fiddle to Shaquile Oneal from 2000-2002.

For what its worth, I dont believe Kobe has been a consistent second option in all three years. Kobe's importance in the playoffs magnified in 01-02 & 02-03 and I think he was more of an Option 1B to Shaq's 1A.


I saw Kobe's numbers against Portland, San Antonio & Sacramento in those seasons, where Kobe was dropping anywhere from 28-31 PPG 5-6 rebs 6-7 and 2spg in 48% shooting. Those were NOT second option numbers. Its not Kobe's fault Shaq was immortal in the Finals (and rightly so since he had to go against Todd McCullough, an undersized Dale Davis and Kenyon Martin and RikSmits in 2 of those Finals Appearance.)

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
all you laker fans need to get off kobes d ick. Tim Duncan or shaq deserves this more.

how does Shaq beat out Kobe???? He was great from 2000-02, and then had a good year in 2004-5, but has been on the downside half the decade.
This is between Kobe and Tim. Period

ARMIN12NBA
09-24-2009, 08:35 PM
well, if the game of basketball is entertainment, than the Spurs would be the worst team in the NBA
And head to head comparisons just dont work. THere are 29 other teams to compete against. This is the same logic that Deron fans use against Paul for example.

When did I say entertainment makes you worse? IMO, Kobe and Duncan are on an close or are even in terms of play. After that, you have to look at the impact they have made on the game of basketball (many MJ fans, including you, use this as an argument for MJ's greatness and I agree too). Kobe has had a much larger impact on the game (see: China), which elevates Kobe slightly IMO.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:35 PM
For what its worth, I dont believe Kobe has been a consistent second option in all three years. Kobe's importance in the playoffs magnified in 01-02 & 02-03 and I think he was more of an Option 1B to Shaq's 1A.


I saw Kobe's numbers against Portland, San Antonio & Sacramento in those seasons, where Kobe was dropping anywhere from 28-31 PPG 5-6 rebs 6-7 and 2spg in 48% shooting. Those were NOT second option numbers. Its not Kobe's fault Shaq was immortal in the Finals (and rightly so since he had to go against Todd McCullough, an undersized Dale Davis and Kenyon Martin and RikSmits in 2 of those Finals Appearance.)

you also have to understand, that when Shaq was in his prime, the other team basically loaded his side of the floor, desperately forcing anyone else to beat them. Kobe had great numbers because he was given far more freedom than he would have been given if Shaq was not there. The other teams ENTIRE defensive plan, was to let anything beat them other than Shaq getting deep post position and dunking on them.
Kobe, and then Wade, as great as they both are, each were huge benefactors of being in the right place at the right time. Could Shaq have won without them? Of course not. But the big fella was the #1 guy on both squads, regardless of statistics. You have to watch game film, and see what the defense was doing. Shaq was their main concern

ARMIN12NBA
09-24-2009, 08:35 PM
Great stat Armin.

Wing playes will always be more "entertaining" than bigs, its just the way it is. It's not as if Duncan hasn't had the exposure, he's been to the finals multiple times; people chose to not tune in, thats why the ratings were horrendous. It shouldn't be a factor on considering individual greatness, but it does affect the way people view players and that may subconsciously form peoples opinions.

Not necessarily. Shaq was pretty damn entertaining, both on and off the court. Same with Dwight Howard in todays game.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2009, 08:36 PM
When did I say entertainment makes you worse? IMO, Kobe and Duncan are on an close or are even in terms of play. After that, you have to look at the impact they have made on the game of basketball (many MJ fans, including you, use this as an argument for MJ's greatness and I agree too). Kobe has had a much larger impact on the game (see: China), which elevates Kobe slightly IMO.

I don't really use that in MJ's case. I may have on a couple of posts, but that has not a lot to do with my case with MJ being the greatest.
That being said, I understand where you are coming from, and I can agree with it.
But, as a true basketball fan, like yourself, I don't care about impact, or highlights, or ESPN. That is basically the reason I give the slightest nod to Tim.

mikantsass
09-24-2009, 08:41 PM
SN PLAYERS OF THE YEAR
2001: Allen Iverson
2002: Tim Duncan
2003: Tim Duncan
2000: Shaquille O'Neal
2004: Kevin Garnett
2005: Shaquille O'Neal
2006: LeBron James, Steve Nash
2007: Dirk Nowitzki
2008: Kobe Bryant
2009: LeBron James


I dont necessarily disagree because I think Kobe certainly has the resume to be named player of the decade, but how can SN name him player of the decade when he was only player of the year once in that decade????????

Again, I dont disagree but Jusssss Sayyyyiiinnnnn

theuuord
09-24-2009, 08:44 PM
You can't really call Kobe a "second option" on those championship teams with Shaq. He used as many possessions as any other first option in the league did.

Assuming a "1st option" would be in the top 30 of usage rate in the NBA (as there are 30 teams), Kobe was 20th in the league in 2000, 3rd in the league in 2001 (ahead of Shaq, although it's only by 0.2 percent and I'd still say Shaq was the first option offensively because that's due to the difference in turnovers between the two) and 7th in the league in 2002.

That's why sometimes the "first option/second option" argument doesn't hold water - they were both first options, and everyone else was basically using possessions at the rate of a fourth option.


That being said, I think it's really a toss-up between Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. Kobe is undoubtedly the best wing of the decade, Shaq is the most dominant player (and personality) of the decade, and Duncan is the most consistent and efficient big of the decade.
You can't really go wrong with any one. I would personally take Shaq because his dominant years were just SO dominant, but I can't argue too seriously against any of them.

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 08:49 PM
SN PLAYERS OF THE YEAR
2001: Allen Iverson
2002: Tim Duncan
2003: Tim Duncan
2000: Shaquille O'Neal
2004: Kevin Garnett
2005: Shaquille O'Neal
2006: LeBron James, Steve Nash
2007: Dirk Nowitzki
2008: Kobe Bryant
2009: LeBron James


I dont necessarily disagree because I think Kobe certainly has the resume to be named player of the decade, but how can SN name him player of the decade when he was only player of the year once in that decade????????

Again, I dont disagree but Jusssss Sayyyyiiinnnnn

Kobe still has one more year to win it (this year). I think the award is a bit premature to begin with. What if Duncan leads the Spurs this year to another title? :facepalm:

lexworld2009
09-24-2009, 08:49 PM
Kobe deserves it with duncan a very close second , but if u want to see who was better look @ the 2001 playoffs Kobe avg. what almost 40 pts vs. Duncans Spurs on their way to a sweep of duncans spurs and the series was a joke except for on egame, but Manu should've gotn that finals mvp when they beat the pistons in 05 he was unstoppable that series duncan did his thing but wasn't the key to that series, Duncan was great thou thru out this decade but better than kobe idk man Kobe has been all-defense and all nba 1st team what 7 out of the 8 years and the year he didn't get it he should've been along with the mvp of the season which was in 05

theuuord
09-24-2009, 08:55 PM
SN PLAYERS OF THE YEAR
2001: Allen Iverson
2002: Tim Duncan
2003: Tim Duncan
2000: Shaquille O'Neal
2004: Kevin Garnett
2005: Shaquille O'Neal
2006: LeBron James, Steve Nash
2007: Dirk Nowitzki
2008: Kobe Bryant
2009: LeBron James


I dont necessarily disagree because I think Kobe certainly has the resume to be named player of the decade, but how can SN name him player of the decade when he was only player of the year once in that decade????????

Again, I dont disagree but Jusssss Sayyyyiiinnnnn

Kobe never had one year where he was head and shoulders above the rest of the competition, but he almost always was in the discussion.
I personally wouldn't have put him for 2008, either, but he's been in the top 3 or 4 most every year, which is way better than pretty much anyone else on the list can say.

loveofthegame87
09-24-2009, 09:27 PM
When he is sick, tired, and hurt Kobe still brings it every game. Kobe said, "I'm chasing perfection". Some said that Tim's team has been better for longer, but the Lakers went to the finals 6 times vs Spurs 3 in the decade. That being said the Lakers still had a few years of rebuilding. Now days having great skills and being in the public eye makes you that even better. Plus the winning every other year doesn't help like winning a few in a row.

TannerOwnsDevin
09-24-2009, 09:39 PM
Impact wise, Duncan IMO should've gotten it. But considering the other inevtiable factors involved, then I guess Kobe Bryant undeniably deserves it. Kobe's 02-03,05-06, 06-07 & 07-08 season were great individual statistical seasons, some really stands out among his peers. He had 4 Titles with impressive postseason numbers everytime the Lakers won a title. He was monumental in the Olympic game (Duncan's last Olympic game ended in a sour note) and the acceptance by millions of his fans probably swayed a whole lot more votes on his way. He helped the Lakers franchise appear in the Finals 6 times for the last 9 years. He had an MVP and I guess for novelty purposes also had 2 AS game MVP's.


Hard for me to say this but looking at Kobe's impact in the league this decade. The struggles that came in his career and how he overcame that to regain the top again was no easy feat for any NBA player. Id give Kobe his credit since its really due this time.

Bruno
09-24-2009, 10:20 PM
Not necessarily. Shaq was pretty damn entertaining, both on and off the court. Same with Dwight Howard in todays game.

There are exceptions. I should have said, generally.

ko8e24
09-25-2009, 12:17 AM
Duncan has been the top dog on his team since he got there. Four championships with three Finals MVPs along with Two regular season MVPs along with a gold medal I believe. Kobe had Shaq for three of those four rings. He then got Lamar & Pau. Now he is going to have Artest. Duncan never had that much star and fire power up until 07' when he won his last ring, but was still the top dog. TP got that finals MVP I know. But Duncan has carried every team, every year. Just my opinion. I dont hate Kobe, I just think Duncan should have the slight edge over him. I also know that One of those championships and finals MVPs was not in this decade. One more question though....Why cant we really wait till the decade is actually over first? If I am wrong on any info. I am sorry and am willing to listen to others side of the argument on this due to how close the debate actually is.



Ummmm....99, he had a pretty dam good david robinson who was still really damn good and one of the top defensive big men in the league, and still avg 15-20 ppg. avery johnson was on that team, as well as sharpshooters mario elie and sean elliot. steve kerr, who came off just winning 3 straight with the bulls, won the very next yr with spurs

03 was robinson as well as steve kerr's final season. u had ginobili and parker in their 2nd yrs, but u also had a pretty good rising star by the name of stephen jackson on that squad. bowen also on team

05 was veteran team of horry, bowen, brent barry along with Big 3

07 was veteran team of horry, bowen, mike finley, oberto, jacque vauhn, matt bonner, along with big 3, and yes, TP was finals mvp, as mentioned.

ko8e24
09-25-2009, 12:21 AM
Impact wise, Duncan IMO should've gotten it. But considering the other inevtiable factors involved, then I guess Kobe Bryant undeniably deserves it. Kobe's 02-03,05-06, 06-07 & 07-08 season were great individual statistical seasons, some really stands out among his peers. He had 4 Titles with impressive postseason numbers everytime the Lakers won a title. He was monumental in the Olympic game (Duncan's last Olympic game ended in a sour note) and the acceptance by millions of his fans probably swayed a whole lot more votes on his way. He helped the Lakers franchise appear in the Finals 6 times for the last 9 years. He had an MVP and I guess for novelty purposes also had 2 AS game MVP's.


3 all-gar game mvps, to go along with 1 league mvp, and u forgot his 1 finals mvp and 2 scoring titles (back-to-back). and these weren't any ordinary scoring titles where u could get away with avg just under 30 ppg or leading all scorers with 28.7 (like MJ did in his final season with bulls in 98).

it was a ridiculous 35.4 in 06 and 31.6 in 07. the closest in 06 to kobe (35.4 PPG) was Allen Iverson, with 33.0 PPG, and closest in 07 to kobe (31.6) was i think carmelo anthony at around 27-28 PPG. So he DOMINATED and had a huge scoring margin over the other guys.

ink
09-25-2009, 12:51 AM
Haven't read the thread but for me the player of the decade is Tim Duncan.

ko8e24
09-25-2009, 12:56 AM
Haven't read the thread but for me the player of the decade is Tim Duncan.


Kobe 1a.
Duncan 1b.


or


Duncan 1a.
Kobe 1b.



I'd be happy with a tie! The Black Mamba & The Big Fundamental! Greatest players in NBA History #51 and #52 (wutever order u wanna put them) rite dere! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

knickerbockerny
09-25-2009, 01:03 AM
That's understandable, the boy balls out!

G-Funk
09-25-2009, 11:28 AM
Let them share it,

Duncan and Kobe= Players of the decade.

Unless one of them wins the ring.

JordansBulls
09-25-2009, 03:19 PM
Here's some food for thought regarding what each player has done this decade:

Props to Semi-sentiment for this

Awards

Kobe Duncan Shaq

NBA Titles: 4 3 4
Conference Titles: 6 3 5
League MVP: 1 2 1
Finals MVP: 1 2 3
All Star MVP: 3 0 3
All-NBA (1st): 7 7 7
All-NBA (2nd): 2 3 0
All-NBA (3rd): 1 0 1
All-Defensive (1st): 7 7 0
All-Defensive (2nd): 2 3 3

Regular Season Performance

Kobe Duncan Shaq

GP: 748 767 662
MPG: 39.4 37.1 34.7
PPG: 28.2 21.4 23.1
TS%: .558 .550 .586
REB: 5.9 11.7 10.6
AST: 5.2 3.3 2.7
STL: 1.7 0.8 0.5
BLK: 0.6 2.3 2.2
TOV: 3.1 2.7 2.7
WS: 125.5 127.3 101.8
WIN%: .646 .702 .640

Playoff Performance

Kobe Duncan Shaq

GP: 147 134 137
MPG: 42.3 39.3 38.8
PPG: 27.6 23.5 24.5
TS%: .541 .549 .561
REB: 5.5 13.0 12.5
AST: 5.2 3.7 2.5
STL: 1.5 0.7 0.5
BLK: 0.7 2.6 2.2
TOV: 3.0 3.0 3.0
WS: 22.3 22.8 21.6
WIN%: .667 .607 .669

IversonIsKrazy
09-25-2009, 03:39 PM
Kobe had 6 trips to the finals, while winning 4 of them, and getting 1 Finals MVP.
Duncan had 3 trips to the finals, while winning all 3, and getting 2 Finals MVP.

Kobe missed the playoffs one of they years, and got bounced in the first-round twice, which means he nvr made the semis 3 straight years.

Duncan got bounced once in the first-round (recent), just once. Duncan deserved this, then Shaq, and THEN Kobe IMO.